>>> - we do need some mechanism to delegate (e.g.) zones under IP6.ARPA correspo
>>> nding to the various v6 analogues of 1918
>> Do we have data that says we need to?
> I don't think we get that data until we look for it, and I think we look for it by delegating some zones and counting queries. We just need somewhere to delegate the zones to. This document is a proposal which would facilitate such a query sink.
AFAIK, data points to this effect were presented by George Michaelson at
the DNSOP IETF meeting in Prague when he introducted his draft to the
group for their consideration. Not sure if George is on this list to
verify my memory as being correct.
>> Remember RFC 6303 style
>> support for ULA was permitted a long time ago. ISC added it to
>> named in 9.4.0. Full RFC 6303 support, to cover the RFC 1918
>> reverses, was only added in 9.9.0 the first major release after RFC
>> 6303 was published.
> I think I interpret your note as "ISC is taking steps to reduce traffic
> on the AS112 servers through the knobs and switches available in BIND"
> which I think is commendable and great, but not entirely an answer to
> the question.
+1, good for BIND to do this, provided people run the latest version of
BIND. An interesting test would be to see how many and what versions of
vendor implementations would self-sink AS112-bound queries.